Hi folks,
Today, I also
corrected a coin posted in my
Roman Provincial,
Lucania,
Paestum,
Part 2 page (fifth coin).
With some
help from Dane, I discovered some new information about that coin. I edited the text description,
corrected the dealer tag (again), and re-shot the photos of the tags (again).
The dealer
had erroneously attributed that coin as
RPC 612 (
apex reverse). I thought it was
RPC 611. It is actually
RPC 610.
The whole correction process began when I noticed an error in
Wildwinds in the listing for
RPC 611 (now
corrected to
RPC 610). I contacted Dane off-site and notified her of the error. She
corrected the error and also significantly expanded the
Tiberius listings for that section (
Lucania,
Paestum). She then responded to my email, notifying me of the proper corrections for my coin. It turned out that we were both wrong initially. But, many times, that's how the discovery process begins. I think we both now have gotten it right. Thank you, Dane.
I
still don't know if the
reverse photo of my example is oriented properly. The main problem is that the
reverse of my example is so butchered and mangled. It may be double struck, or it may be some sort of flan/striking defect. The
reverse is really a mess. I suspect that is why the dealer screwed up the
attribution. About the only thing that is clear on the
reverse of my example are the 4 front legs of the 2 horses, which are clearly visible at the 6:00-7:00 position. Beyond that, not much is clear.
It is ironic that the
reverse is such a mess, because the
obverse of my example is so unusually nice (and artistic) for those
Tiberius Paestum issues. It has one of the best
Tiberius portraits I've ever seen on a
Provincial AE
Paestum issue. But the
reverse is such a mangled, garbled mess.
It is certainly an interesting (and confusing) coin.
Meepzorp
